Angel of Satan

Archbishop Stylianos of Australia

In describing the "chronic illness" which tormented his whole life - and which scholars have
been unable to characterise with certainty - St Paul gives a name which is not only composite, but
also highly problematic. He has characterised his illness as an "angel of satan". However, since
the fall of Lucifer, the words "angel" and "satan" reveal more than just an antithesis. They
signify two entire worlds, which totally refute one another. For, what is angelic completely
rejects what is satanic, and vice versa. For this precise reason, our first reaction is one of
surprise, before the strange "alchemy" of the name chosen by St Paul.

We know that the Apostle of the Nations had an unrivalled education, both in Jewish literature -
the Law and the Prophets - and in the broader secular wisdom of the Hellenistic period. Having had
the vision on the road to Damascus, St Paul was certainly in a better position than anyone else to
know and appreciate the absolute antithesis expressed by the names "angel" and "satan".

It is both the depth of his education and his extraordinarily tested spirit, which therefore
make imperative a more thorough search for the meaning of this curious term.

If we read carefully the paragraph where St Paul speaks about the "affliction" of his life (2
Cor. 12:7-12), we will see that his teaching, which develops here in a climate of deep gratitude
and compunction, has nothing to do with rhetorical "oxymorons", in order to impress. At any rate,
the confessional tone of his speech, especially in this case, seeks to edify and strengthen the
person of faith undergoing trials. It achieves this by directly consoling, and without seeking to
instruct in the long-term on a theoretical level.

To correctly approach the curious "bi-polarity" of the mixed name that the St Paul employed, it
would help to remember that the interpreters of the excerpt have presented us with two differing
opinions. They are uncertain as to whether the word "satan" should be understood in the nominative
or genitive case. For if it is in the nominative, then the two words (angel and satan) are equally
interdefinitive. However, if we are dealing with the genitive, then "angel" is considered an
instrument or operation "of satan". It seems that most interpreters prefer the second option, since
this has been preserved in the principle codices as the most authentic.

If we accept that "satan" is in the nominative case - meaning that the two words remain on the
same level as determinative of one another - this would lend itself to the idea that St. Paul was
trying to teach endurance in the face of suffering. This means that the name "angel" is equivalent
to "satan" or to put it more correctly, Satan "becomes", under certain conditions, an "angel".

This is an appropriate point to recall a fundamental truth regarding 'rational beings' in
general, namely human beings and angels. These rational creatures of God have been endowed with the
highest gift of freedom ('free will'), such that they are in a position either to abide by or
violate the divine will. It follows therefore that they do not possess an 'unchanging' nature. In
other words, it is not their nature but rather their will, and their function in accordance with
this within the entire plan of the divine Economy, which renders them in the end either to be
'angelic' (ie. evangelical and beneficial) or 'satanic' beings. This explains how Lucifer, one of
the first among angels, could become Satan, as well as how Satan on certain occasions can possibly
'serve' the plan of salvation (in a pedagogical way, as in the plagues of Pharaoh).

If on the other hand we accept that 'satan' is in the genitive case, thereby expressing an
angelic messenger directed by Satan, then of course the whole soteriological fate of the human
person would be placed within the absolute dependence upon the Devil. This would put in question
the omnipotence of God, or we would at least have to accept a kind of Manichean dualism. Yet the
Church has rejected, and even condemned this, as a great heresy. Therefore, the term 'satan' must
be interpreted in the nominative case.

Having made the above fundamental clarifications, let us now turn to what St. Paul means when he
names his otherwise unspecified illness an "angel of satan".

It is beyond doubt that this illness had exceedingly tormented the vulnerable body of the
Apostle to the Nations. This is precisely why he does not hide the fact that he had repeatedly
entreated God to relieve him of the torment. Consequently, the Apostle was justified initially in
thinking that this painful adventure throughout his life was the work of Satan. However, even
though the illness tormented him as "satan", it is characteristic that he did not curse it, and he
did not protest to God. He simply prayed. He had asked about this often in his prayer, nothing
more.

From the answer that the Lord gave him, one can clearly see that this sickness was not a
punishment. In other words it was not a penalty. Rather it was again a "privileged treatment" of
Paul, by God.

However, the statement "my grace is sufficient for you", which was the first part of his answer,
would not have been sufficient to show the richness of God's love for humanity for his faithful
Apostle. The phrase "it is sufficient for you" could simply mean that "you are not in need of any
other grace, you have received enough".

However, following this is the significant "for my strength is made perfect in weakness" which
gives entirely other dimensions to the words of the first section. But curiously, the codices of
the manuscripts have retained two texts. Some write "teleitai", and others "teleioutai". However a
careful analysis of the verbs shows that there is not an essential difference. And the reason for
this is because, whether "teleitai", (that is, the grace of God contributes, is made active) or
"teleioutai" (that is, is fulfilled) is used, it is plainly about the fullness and immediate action
of divine Love, which does not permit fractures or compromises. It is clear that just as each of
the Persons of the Holy Trinity, even if they constitute "another mode of existence" of the one
God, are not "a part" of the Godhead, but the whole God, so it is that the Love which expresses the
"richness of His goodness" (Rom. 2:4), is not made less by the various ways that it is
bestowed.

From the answer of our Lord to his plea, Paul recognises and confesses that only on account of
the highest honour given through the multitude of revelations ("the abundance of Revelations")
which God entrusted to him, he had to carry the permanent "trauma", as a "bridle" which would
continually remind him of his human limits: "so that I may not become proud". However, the danger
of something like that was apparently intense, which is why Paul was forced to say twice in the
same sentence, "so that I may not become proud".

And this great martyr of the Gospel does not display false humility here. On the contrary, in
gratitude he confesses that God entrusted him with unheard of and ineffable revelations, for which
he could boast, without being "foolish", but does not do it. And he does not do it, because he
would not want others to see him as something more than what they see, or hear him say. The only
thing that the Apostle considers that he is justified in boasting about is his ailments: "beyond me
I cannot boast except for my ailments".

This shattering humility, which crowns the confession of St Paul, becomes indeed "the key" for
us to perceive the endurance of the faithful person, for whatever trials he may meet in this
present life. At the same time it becomes also "the key" for the type of pride that faithful people
are entitled to have, as both a hope and a comfort (it is called "expectation" among the people of
Crete!), without becoming "foolish" for what God has judged them worthy to endure and to suffer.
The value of "the lesson" from "suffering", about which the Ancients also spoke, is, it seems,
indispensable, since the "beatings" (ie. the slaps in the face), from whatever trials, are
perceived pedagogically -another form of "the guardian angel", as St Paul experienced it, as one of
the many unprecedented revelations.

In conclusion, let us say that it is for all of us particularly instructive and comforting to look ahead with such spiritual armour at the unknowable
contingencies and events which await us, as we have entered this new year and the beginning of the third Christian millennium.